I assume that the insurance companies you mention are only interested in short term predictions. These can be reasonably constructed by direct projection of past data and locally known factors. They are in really big trouble if they are planning far into the future unless, by shear luck, their models match the local climate.
From what you are describing, it appears that the companies are only looking ahead one season which is weather instead of climate prediction. How would a startup company have the knowledge to generate a climate model of any real use in short order? Do you know whether or not those guys have hired significant talent from the main modeling organizations? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 1:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:global warming? On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: I'm not all that interested in passing judgement on "the integrity of the majority of climate scientists". I'm interested in seeing if there's real science behind this constantly-changing thesis. My conclusion at this time is: NO. What is there has been driven more by politics than science. Climate Corporation is a startup in San Francisco, not far from where I work, that use climate models to price insurance policies for farmers that want to insure their crops. You should definitely warn these guys that they're in for a huge loss, because there's no science behind what they're doing: https://www.climate.com/ Alternatively, if you think you can time things right, you should take out a short position on Monsanto, their parent company, for their blockheadedness in acquiring them. Eric
